Before this site shuts down, I will share this, people might find it useful for debates.

So site is maybe going to shut down in two days, which is too bad given that this site has some of the best debaters on internet. I dont think modern day debate comes even close to this site. It has more members, but they are generally poor debaters who seem to be debating with gish gallop claims only instead of arguments.

Here, I will explain what is true argument and what is true counter-argument.

True argument is argument where opposite premises are impossible. Due to law of non-contradiction, if all opposite premises are impossible, premise must be logically true.

Try this command to AI to make argument:

"Write deductive argument of "premise 1: A or not A. Premise 2: Not not A. Conclusion: A" about poverty being very high predictor of crime. Prove all premises. Show that "not A" is impossible."

True counter-argument comes in 2 forms:

1. Where opposite premise is possible

2. Where opposite premise must be true

If opposite premise is possible, then argument premise logically cannot be proved true because to be true requires that opposite premise is impossible.

If opposite premise must be true, then the argument cannot possibly be true.

So both 1 and 2 are true counter arguments, but only 2 is complete negation.

True argument, to put it simply, comes in form of "A or not A" as its part.

It must have this, because then it can show that not A is impossible, that is: Not not A. (Negation of negation).

However, A or not A isnt the only part.

For example, argument about abortion:

Abortion is wrong in most cases.

P1. If human life has enough moral value to exist in most cases (instead of being aborted), abortion is wrong in most cases.

P2. Human life has enough moral value to exist in most cases or human life doesnt have enough moral value to exist in most cases.

P3. It is not true that human life doesnt have enough moral value to exist in most cases

C. Abortion is wrong in most cases.

The only premise in this whole argument which needs to be proved is premise 3, which is a negation of negation.

P1 and P2 are tautology.

In this case, merely proving negation of negation proves whole argument, making argument true argument.

Another form of true argument are arguments true by definition.

For example, if cats are defined as type of animals, then saying cats are animals is true by definition.

True counter-argument by definition works too.

For example, saying cats arent animals is false by definition. Saying that cats are insects would be false by definition as insects arent defined as animals while cats are.

Definition traps are usually easiest debates.

Likewise, there is true counter argument of undefined word. If some crucial word in topic is undefined, it leaves a huge opening for opponent to define it instead, which then twists the debate in his favor, because one proper definition has power to negate countless arguments which depend on different version of topic instead of stated one. 

Also, whats good advice is that you can use google notebook AI. Just upload txt files to it which in detail explain to it on how to logically argue, and then it will argue according to those correct principles, as opposed to just AI which picks from internet.

Check out the bodacious ta tas on Allah!

To defeat the claim, "Check out the bodacious ta tas on Allah!", one can draw upon several debate tactics from the sources, primarily focusing on **definitions**, exposing **hidden assumptions**, and highlighting **logical contradictions**.

Here is how you can defeat this claim:

    * The sources emphasise that defining terms is crucial in a debate, stating that "debating without definitions is like playing chess without knowing the rules". They instruct debaters to "define each word in topic" and to "defend the definition".

    * The term "Allah" refers to the unique God in Islam. In Islamic theology, Allah is understood to be transcendent, incorporeal, and without physical attributes or gender (Information not from the provided sources. You may wish to independently verify this.).

    * Therefore, asserting that "Allah" possesses physical attributes like "bodacious ta tas" (breasts) **directly contradicts the accepted definition or understanding** of "Allah". As the sources note, "A = definition, so cannot be not definition". If Allah is defined as incorporeal, then it is impossible for Allah to also be corporeal.

    * This makes the claim **false by definition**. The sources explain that if a word's definition excludes a certain attribute, then claiming that attribute for the word is false by tautology, similar to saying "cats aren't animals" if cats are defined as a type of animal.

    * Arguments often rely on unstated "hidden premises" or "hidden assumptions". The sources state that these "are in theory perfect counter-arguments, because they cannot be disproved and they always make argument unproved".

    * The claim "Check out the bodacious ta tas on Allah!" relies on the **hidden assumption** that Allah has a physical body capable of possessing such features. This is an assumption that is neither proved nor provable within the common understanding of Allah, and it must be true for the claim to hold any ground.

    * By exposing this underlying, unstated, and unsupportable assumption, the claim can be rendered unproved. The sources advise to "expose assumptions, case depending on assumption".

    * The claim inherently contains a fundamental logical inconsistency. The sources emphasize that "proposition is impossible if it leads to a contradiction with established facts".

    * If Allah is understood as an incorporeal being, then attributing corporeal features ("bodacious ta tas") to Allah creates a **direct contradiction**. This violates fundamental logical laws such as the Law of Identity ("A=A") and the Law of Contradiction ("A=/=not A"), which are considered the "basis of debate". The claim asserts that something is both incorporeal and corporeal, which is logically impossible.

    * You could simply respond by stating that "A contradicts B" or "A is opposite of B", or by denying the "base premise" of the claim as untrue.

In conclusion, by focusing on the **definitional impossibility**, the **unsupported hidden assumptions**, and the **inherent logical contradictions** within the claim, it can be definitively defeated according to the debate strategies provided in the sources.

Yeah, whatever, Allah. Ya got a massive bosom in your avatar (in its current form).

Thats just Allah's name in Arabic. If it looks like big breasts, thats probably unfortunate mistake.

   OMG, I thought those were balls!

No, thats Allah's name.

         10-4

Interesting FLRW, I think it could go either way.

Another possibility is person with a split tongue. 

Also a cartoon-like drawing of 3. 5 fingers of a full hand.

Yeah, I can see that now, but I, for one, am happy I initially saw boobs rather than a ballsack…

I thought that Allah's real name was Yhwh.

And that Allah and GOD were just pseudonyms.

Though I'm guessing that pre-Abe he had other names.

Assuming it's a he of course.

Real name might be Dorothy Farquhar.

How dare you claim Allah is male. 

Allah is trans and gay.

OMG, Allah is JESUS?

Or, it is, in the land of cartoon thumbless idiots, it's god.

Or, it is, in the land of cartoon thumbless idiots, it's god.

Dorothy Farquhar is perhaps trans.

She has very short hair, no perceivable breasts, and wears dungarees and big boots.

Though perhaps I'm being discriminatory.